• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Rumors of Justice Kennedy's Impending Retirement from the U.S. Supreme Court

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

excelsiorlef

Member
jaekeem said:
Yes. And so you're right, my perspective on the issue is limited.

It it falls, it falls. You may read that as me being nonchalant, but if certain justices pass away then and your intuitions are right (although I disagree), then it's done. Forces outside of our control at that point.

But we can control how we vote. We can fight for legislatures. And that's what I'm saying. It's not that I don't care if the court swings right and does insane shit (although I have more tempered expectations of how far they'll go), but that if that comes to pass then that battleground is done for until the next series of retirements/justices dying.
Click to expand...

If it falls it falls... Christ. Listen how glibly you speak about arguable of the most important rights women can have in the US.

You were cheering it on earlier for motivational purposes, please never forget that.

And if it falls I hope you have the guts to look women whose rights are being torn from them and say everything you've said here.
 
J

jaekeem

Member
excelsiorlef said:
If it falls it falls... Christ. Listen how glibly you speak about arguable of the most important rights women can have in the US.

You were cheering it on earlier for motivational purposes, please never forget that.

And if it falls I hope you have the guts to look women whose rights are being torn from them and say everything you've said here.
Click to expand...

I mean you're interpreting me saying that I 'welcome' it as if I'm elated at the result. Clearly I used the wrong choice of words. My point was that if it happens then the best way of moving forward (in my opinion) is fighting for legislatures.

You're attacking me as if I want the court to swing to the right and that I'm happy about the idea of our country heading in a decidedly regressive direction. I'm not. Apologies if my matter-of-fact posting style came across as callous. That wasn't intended.
 
E

excelsiorlef

Member
jaekeem said:
I mean you're interpreting me saying that I 'welcome' it as if I'm elated at the result. Clearly I used the wrong choice of words. My point was that if it happens then the best way of moving forward (in my opinion) is fighting for legislatures.

You're attacking me as if I want the court to swing to the right and that I'm happy about the idea of our country heading in a decidedly regressive direction. I'm not. Apologies if my matter-of-fact posting style came across as callous. That wasn't intended.
Click to expand...

I'm criticizing you for how callously and trivial you speak of abortion rights.
 
J

jaekeem

Member
excelsiorlef said:
I'm criticizing you for how callously and trivial you speak of abortion rights.
Click to expand...

I was just debating possible worst case scenarios with you.

You're free to think of me as particularly insensitive, or uncaring, towards abortion rights based on a handful of posts. I don't agree with that assessment, but if I came across that way then I clearly am at fault, so again, apologies.
 
X

Xe4

Banned
excelsiorlef said:
If it falls it falls... Christ. Listen how glibly you speak about arguable of the most important rights women can have in the US.

You were cheering it on earlier for motivational purposes, please never forget that.

And if it falls I hope you have the guts to look women whose rights are being torn from them and say everything you've said here.
Click to expand...

I would argue, it's more or less become de-facto illegal in many red states already. Abortion rights are going to continue to be chipped away at, and nobody is going to challenge it because they don't want it to send it to a conservative court.

At a certain point, Roe v. Wade being gutted honestly wouldn't have too big an effect in conservative states, which is what I think the poster was getting at. The question is what exactly the effect of Roe v. Wade being killed will have vs. this gradual reduction in legality in conservative states we have seen until now. I'm not sure myself.

It's why in the absence of a supreme court that is willing to support Roe v., state legislatures become crucial. It's been an uphill battle for a while, ever since the evangelical movement turned against abortion as well.
 
B

Beartruck

Member
Im optimistic that as long as Roberts is chief justice Roe vs wade will stand. He could simply decline to hear any lawsuit attempting to overturn it, citing precedent.
 
E

excelsiorlef

Member
Xe4 said:
I would argue, it's more or less become de-facto illegal in many red states already. Abortion rights are going to continue to be chipped away at, and nobody is going to challenge it because they don't want it to send it to a conservative court.

At a certain point, Roe v. Wade being gutted honestly wouldn't have too big an effect in conservative states, which is what I think the poster was getting at. The question is what exactly the effect of Roe v. Wade being killed will have vs. this gradual reduction in legality in conservative states we have seen until now. I'm not sure myself.

It's why in the absence of a supreme court that is willing to support Roe v., state legislatures become crucial. It's been an uphill battle for a while, ever since the evangelical movement turned against abortion as well.
Click to expand...

Death of Roe v Wade opens up for a National ban...

And all the stuff I mentioned of forced hospitalization, prosecution of the women, and miscarriages becoming criminal investigations.
 
F

Future

Member
excelsiorlef said:
If it falls it falls... Christ. Listen how glibly you speak about arguable of the most important rights women can have in the US.

You were cheering it on earlier for motivational purposes, please never forget that.

And if it falls I hope you have the guts to look women whose rights are being torn from them and say everything you've said here.
Click to expand...

The thing is many women voted in favor of this possible outcome. Unfortunately we need some extreme results to motivate people to vote against this kind of shit
 
M

Mammoth Jones

Member
If you ain't vote then don't bitch. People really act like votes don't matter. Also democrat leadership needs to change and realize their individual desire to stay in power ain't as important as winning to be able to put judges on the bench that align with their ideology.
 
X

Xe4

Banned
excelsiorlef said:
Death of Roe v Wade opens up for a National ban...

And all the stuff I mentioned of forced hospitalization, prosecution of the women, and miscarriages becoming criminal investigations.
Click to expand...
I doubt a national ban would happen. Even before Roe v. Wade, that was never something that happened. Rather it was a state by state issue. Not that it's any better, I just don't think it'll be pushed to that degree.

However, the other stuff you mentioned is a lot more worrying, because abortions, in Americas history, have carried a felony punishment before, and I could see that happening again, something not possible under Roe v. Wade.

More worrying than women being persecuted (I suspect states would go after the doctors, as a matter of statistics, and make an example out of a woman here or there) is the danger to health and safety of those that seek it dying of medical complications, due to the illegal nature leading to inherently less safe conditions. It's why in a hypothetical Roe v. Wade ban, states are going to *have* to step up, and offer safe conditions for people in other states to have access.

As a point of curiosity, if you lived in the US and Roe v. Wade got overturned, what would you do? And I'm not talking about protesting or calling your senators, but in what ways would you try to make the best out of a shit situation? Because that's the reality of what may happen. Personally, I would try to make bluer states possible havens for those seeking a safe medical procedure, because that would be the best possible workaround I could think of if illigilization of abortion would happen.
 
E

excelsiorlef

Member
Xe4 said:
I doubt a national ban would happen. Even before Roe v. Wade, that was never something that happened. Rather it was a state by state issue. Not that it's any better, I just don't think it'll be pushed to that degree.

However, the other stuff you mentioned is a lot more worrying, because abortions, in Americas history, have carried a felony punishment before, and I could see that happening again, something not possible under Roe v. Wade.

More worrying than women being persecuted is the danger to health and safety of those that seek it dying of medical complications, due to the illegal nature leading to inherently less safe conditions. It's why in a hypothetical Roe v. Wade ban, states are going to *have* to step up, and offer safe conditions for people in other states to have access.

As a point of curiosity, if you lived in the US and Roe v. Wade got overturned, what would you do? And I'm not talking about protesting or calling your senators, but in what ways would you try to make the best out of a shit situation? Because that's the reality of what may happen.
Click to expand...

In the past is nothing.... We're in a Brave New World here, this Republicans are fucking evil.

As to your last point I honestly don't know but I wouldn't talk callously about it. I'd properly join any organization seeking to help women get access to abortions be it in another State (assuming no national ban) or in Canada if need be.
 
K

KuwabaraTheMan

Banned
StoOgE said:
Get ready for direct election of Senators to be on the chopping block. It'll be hard to pull off, but it's one of the few elections they can't gerrymander outright. It's why so many of their presidential nominees want it gone. Statewide elections are harder to tip the scales in your favor for.
Click to expand...

That would require a constitutional amendment, because the Senate being determined by a statewide vote is guaranteed by the 17th amendment.

Every other nightmare scenario is definitely possible, though.
 
Z

ZeoVGM

Banned
I won't freak out about this yet. Hopefully he's just considering it and if he does, waits until the 2020 election.
 
A

Autodidact

Banned
ZeoVGM said:
I won't freak out about this yet. Hopefully he's just considering it and if he does, waits until the 2020 election.
Click to expand...

Right. What 80-year-old man wouldn't at least consider retirement? My soon-to-be 87-year-old grandfather "considered" retiring this year but will be driving a school bus come August.
 
P

Piano

Banned
This terrifies me more than almost anything else about the current administration.

What do we do, GAF? What do I do?

I already vote and call my reps. I guess there's not much else that can be done...
 
A

Autodidact

Banned
Piano said:
This terrifies me more than almost anything else about the current administration.

What do we do, GAF? What do I do?

I already vote and call my reps. I guess there's not much else that can be done...
Click to expand...

VOTE IN THE MIDTERMS and tell everyone you know to vote, too. Tell them there'll be weed and bouncy houses at the polls if you have to.
 
C

Chumley

Banned
Piano said:
This terrifies me more than almost anything else about the current administration.

What do we do, GAF? What do I do?

I already vote and call my reps. I guess there's not much else that can be done...
Click to expand...

You can't do anything besides move to a different country, in the immediate term.

Voting in the midterms only matters if you live in a state where your vote matters.
 
S

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
KuwabaraTheMan said:
That would require a constitutional amendment, because the Senate being determined by a statewide vote is guaranteed by the 17th amendment.

Every other nightmare scenario is definitely possible, though.
Click to expand...

It will be *extremely* difficult for them to pull off. But the desire is certainly there.

And the desire to do it speaks volumes to their priorities. They would rather remove a direct democratic election by their constituents because they believe the congressional delegation knows better.

Once their top priorities are secured, they'll train the Fox News machine on this. It may never happen, but it's something to keep an eye on. The liklihood they would get to 2/3rd majority in either house is low. They would also have to peel off about 10 states that would be unlikely to go for such a proposal.

That said, the fact that there were legitimate questions about this during Republican Primary Presidential debates says mountains.
 
Trickster

Trickster

Member
I feel so bad for people in the US that voted for Hillary, or wanted to but had legitimate reasons for being unable to do so.

Zero sympathy for any other Americans though. Those people deserve whatever shit is coming their way. A supreme court with 2-4 Trump justices is gonna fuck up America so hard for decades
 
RPGCrazied

RPGCrazied

Member
Dear god no! Surely he is aware of the ramifications of such actions? He would literally make the court conservative leaning for decades.

How could you sleep at night doing that?
 
R

RumbleHumble

Banned
The only people on the Supreme Court willing to overturn Roe v. Wade for sure are Alito and Thomas. Roberts explicitly stated he wouldn't at his confirmation hearings. Likewise with Trump's Justice Gorsuch. What we WILL see if we lose Kennedy are greater protection of gay-hating laws under the guise of religious freedom, elimination of the birth control as right theory, and greater deference to state restrictions on abortion. It's not the apocalypse, but it's still fucking bad.
 
B

BoogieWoogie

Banned
Xe4 said:
I doubt a national ban would happen. Even before Roe v. Wade, that was never something that happened. Rather it was a state by state issue. Not that it's any better, I just don't think it'll be pushed to that degree.
Click to expand...

Remember when people said the AHCA wouldn't pass the House? Then when it did pass the House they said that the Senate would make it more moderate?

They literally LITERALLY made it worse than the House bill. If you don't think that the Republicans are going to use this opportunity to drag us kicking and screaming back into the 1920s, you're fooling yourself. I honestly can see them attempting to bring back slavery at this fucking point.
 
A

AmayaPapaya

Banned
Republican policies are very unpopular. Roe V Wade may go away, but it would come back eventually. This will be a very bad 4 years though :[ The next president needs to increase the supreme court size to wash the conservatives out. Democrats are not bold tho, so I don't see it happening. Their answer will be: "You gotta wait and follow tradition!" Eventhough republicans have been historically breaking traditions to do what they want for this cycle. I hope we get someone bold for the next election.
 
E

excelsiorlef

Member
AmayaPapaya said:
Republican policies are very unpopular. Roe V Wade may go away, but it would come back eventually. This will be a very bad 4 years though :[ The next president needs to increase the supreme court size to wash the conservatives out. Democrats are not bold tho, so I don't see it happening. Their answer will be: "You gotta wait and follow tradition!" Eventhough republicans have been historically breaking traditions to do what they want for this cycle. I hope we get someone bold for the next election.
Click to expand...


Roe v Wade was a Supreme Court ruling, if it goes it's not a matter of simply passing new legislation once the Dems take control again.

They'd have to fight it's constitutionality in court again and would probably lose if the court was the same.
 
A

AmayaPapaya

Banned
excelsiorlef said:
Roe v Wade was a Supreme Court ruling, if it goes it's not a matter of simply passing new legislation once the Dems take control again.

They'd have to fight it's constitutionality in court again and would probably lose if the court was the same.
Click to expand...
That's why I said they should increase the size of the court.
 
K

Kettch

Member
Reversing Roe v Wade means you'll get an actual revolution in the country, women aren't going to take that sitting down. Even if Trump nominates a wacko, I don't see 5 of them being dumb enough to do that.
 
C

commedieu

Banned
balladofwindfishes said:
Actions speak louder than rumors

Come on guys

He's going to staff up and request certain cases be heard this year that he's been waiting to hear and just be like "lol jk, nah man, I'm out!" Not at all. That's not how it works. The last SC to retire told Obama in early May and didn't go ahead and plan an entire year of being on the job and then decide a week before the start of the new SC year that he was done
Click to expand...

If you don't want to discuss rumors, why even jump in the thread? I ignore threads I don't want to participate in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Breaking: Justice Kennedy announces retirement from SCOTUS
2 3 4 5
208
13K
Kadayi replied
Nobody On The Supreme Court Is Retiring (At Least For Now)
11
2K
Steeped in a Sea of Games replied
  • Locked
Senate confirms Gorsuch to replace Scalia on Supreme Court
5 6 7 8 9
436
43K
Branduil replied
  • Locked
Trump to Appoint SCOTUS pick next week
2 3 4
162
16K
Seth Enosh replied
The Strange Civil Rights Views of Trump’s Latest Court Nominees (Politico)
36
3K
Lord Frieza replied
Top Bottom